Lots of buzz about domestic drones; concerns rise with possibilities

As industry leaders, government and military officials gather this week in Northern Virginia, the “unmanned vehicle systems” sector faces mounting questions on all sides, including privacy concerns, hostile state and local laws, and constitutional battles over the roles of drones in the modern U.S. military arsenal.

With the flurry of activity, lawmakers and the general public are beginning to get a firmer grasp on what drones can do and the greater roles they will play in everyday American life, analysts say.

The conversation about drones is no longer being had solely in Washington, but in town halls across the country, said Amie Stepanovich, an attorney with the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

“The industry has really been controlling these conversations. We’re hoping that won’t continue,” she said Monday. “The industry has definitely taken off in terms of publicity. People are becoming more aware of the industry and how active they are in the U.S.”

Amid all the questions, criticism and proposed laws, this week’s conference in McLean is a chance for the sector to try to turn attention away from the civil-liberties concerns associated with their products and toward the benefits they offer to law enforcement, fire departments and other governmental entities.

“They have the capability to help police and firefighters, who put themselves into harm’s way every day in order to protect the communities they serve, do their job safely and efficiently,” association Chairman Peter Bale said in a recent letter to Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, arguing against the pending anti-drone legislation.

“And in times of tight budgets, [drones] can provide the same capability of a manned helicopter at a fraction of the operational cost, saving taxpayer dollars,” Mr. Bale said.

Law enforcement officials in Florida have made similar arguments against drone legislation introduced by state Sen. Joe Negron, a Republican. While Mr. Negron’s bill includes exemptions — such as allowing drones to be used in hostage situations or to find a missing child — he, like other critics, said there must be tight controls on the drones.

“Drones are fine for killing terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but they shouldn’t be used to monitor the activities of law-abiding Floridians,” he said last week, according to The Palm Beach Post.

Mr. Negron’s bill is similar to proposals in Montana, Washington and elsewhere, though they differ in scope. Federal lawmakers also are taking aim at drones and their place in American foreign policy.

A number of senators have floated the idea of a “drone assassination court,” a judge or panel of judges that would sign off on U.S. military drone strikes around the globe.

Yet another piece of legislation will be unveiled this week in the House, a bipartisan bill laying out how and for what purposes drones can be used and requiring that all judges and attorneys general provide a detailed list of all drone warrants issued and the legal rationale for granting them. The Preserving American Privacy Act will be introduced by Rep. Ted Poe, Texas Republican, and Rep. Zoe Lofgren, California Democrat, and will include other drone rules and limits.